Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/29/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: June 22, 2001

A press release dated September 25, 2008 stated that the Fifth District Appellate Court has dismissed an appeal by Tyson Foods for summary judgment in a Madison County class action suit filed over allegations that the company putting too much water in prepackaged chicken. The report recounts that Tyson had filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that federal law preempts the plaintiffs' claims. However, that request was denied by Madison County Circuit Judge Ralph Mendelsohn. Tyson then appealed Judge Mendelsohn's ruling. In an opinion released on Sept. 19 2008, Justice Stephen Spomer wrote that Tyson's appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005, oral arguments on the appeal were heard by the Court of Appeals September 13, 2005 and on November 9, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court. On November 23, 2005, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on December 21, 2005.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, between June 22 and July 20, 2001, various plaintiffs commenced actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The various actions were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation and, on December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On January 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. By memorandum order dated October 23, 2002, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 6, 2003, the District Court certified a class consisting of those who purchased IBP securities on or before March 29, 2001, and subsequently sold such securities from March 30 through June 15, 2001, inclusive, and sustained damages as a result of such transaction. Following the conclusion of discovery in the case, plaintiffs and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment. On June 17, 2004, the District Court rendered an opinion in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs’ claims, and entered an order to that effect. On June 28, 2004, defendants filed a motion requesting the District Court to modify its order to include judgment in defendants’ favor against the class and on July 30, 2004, the District Court entered such an order. On August 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs filed their brief on the appeal on December 8, 2004. Defendants filed their response on January 24, 2005. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on February 24, 2005.

The original complaint charges Tyson Foods, Inc. (``Tyson'' or the ``Company''), the Company's founder and controlling stockholder, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's Executive Vice President and General Counsel with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that on March 29, 2001, Tyson announced it would terminate a proposed merger between Tyson and IBP (the ``Merger'') because Tyson purportedly relied upon misleading information furnished by IBP concerning an SEC comment letter and the financial results at an IBP subsidiary in determining to enter into the Merger Agreement. It was not until June 15, 2001, when, in an action brought by IBP shareholders, In re IBP, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 18373 (Del. Ch., June 15, 2001), the Court concluded that Tyson's decision to withdraw from the Merger had nothing to do with the SEC comment letter or the problems at IBP's subsidiary.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Food Processing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IBP
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Delaware
DOCKET #: 01-CV-425
JUDGE: Hon. Sue L. Robinson
DATE FILED: 06/22/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/29/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/15/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Delaware
DOCKET #: 01-CV-425
JUDGE: Hon. Sue L. Robinson
DATE FILED: 12/04/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/29/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/15/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. Chimicles & Tikellis LLP (Haverford)
    361 West Lancaster Avenue, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP (Haverford), PA 19041
    888.805.7848 610.649.3633 · mail@chimicles.com
  3. Duane Morris, LLP
    1100 North Market Street - Suite 1200, Duane Morris, LLP, DE 19801
    302.657.4900 ·
  4. Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
    1 Renaissance SQ; 2 N Central Ave, Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP, AZ 85004-2391
    602.229.5200 ·
No Document Title Filing Date